Global Cooperation to Combat Climate Change, Essay Example

What Do You Think Is the Reason Why It Has Been So Difficult to Achieve Global Cooperation to Combat Climate Change?

Introduction

Despite appearing to be a topic of recent global interest, climate change issues are exceedingly complex and entail a vast variety of challenges, opportunities, and points of view. According to The Oxford Handbook of Energy Politics by Hancock & Allison (2020), the Climate change movement began in Europe late 19th century as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Great success occurred in Britain with this movement. Since there were no regulations to prevent pollution, factories swiftly expanded into farming communities, contaminating the air and water. The locals did not wait long to react, making their voices heard and demanding that factories and government save the natural spaces in their communities. As a result of these campaigns, a wide variety of constituencies has coalesced around the desire for increased security and a shift toward a mode of communication that places a premium on awareness.

English conservation organizations date back to as early as the 1800s with the formation of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (Tzu, 2011). The United States and international conservation efforts finally caught up at the turn of the twentieth century. Germany, which prioritized forest protection, was one of several countries to introduce Climate change rules and create government institutions (Morgenthau, 1978). There was a slow but steady increase in ecological consciousness throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but the 1970s were the pivotal decade in terms of the development of concrete actions. The inaugural Earth Day and the first Climate change summit held by the United Nations took place this decade. Subsequently, it is right to say that it has been difficult to achieve global cooperation to combat climate change because of global inaction, time disconnect, modern living, and climate change priorities in developing countries.

Global Inaction

The number of people who pay attention and act on ways to mitigate climate change worldwide is small. Authorities, academic institutions, and the general public do not understand climate change better and its potential consequences (Mencius, 2011). Unfortunately, as it was, the decline occurred after the peak. Climate change groups have seen a steady fall in support since their heyday in the late aughts, during the height of the uproar against the great recession and globalization. Next, problems such as divergent goals, linguistic and cultural barriers, international rivalry, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of expertise, and the prevalence of outsourcing became readily apparent (Stroebel & Wurgler, 2021). The lack of a standard method to establish responsibility is another critical issue that hinders widespread international cooperation. While Europe is at the forefront of moves to enforce accountability and strategy, their influence has been minimal thus far.

Globally, an effort to combat climate change could be motivated by either need or personal desire. The European Union lacks the political and economic clout necessary to convince other countries to join the fight against climate change (Young, 2016). The European Union’s (EU) normative preference for soft acts and the concept of the EU as a civilian authority fit this method with their coalition government pursuit. Thanks to the cooperative system of representation and coordination in place since the early 1990s, tremendous progress has been accomplished as a participant in international climate policy (Young, 2016). They have tried to create solid stances before the negotiations by delegating authority to senior delegates and the president.

These collective action problems arise when the sum of people’s rational and self-interested decisions have an effect that is bad for the group as a whole, and they may be the most pressing problem ever faced by humanity (Wapner, 2014). Considering that the bulk of economies relies on energy resources that release them, it is reasonable for a single country not to undertake significant reductions in carbon emissions. As a result of the collective emissions, however, most countries will become poorer in the long run if they maintain their existing patterns of behavior (Zainieva & Abdrasilova, 2018). To rephrase, what may be good for one country when considered in isolation may be bad for the global situation. Things that are bad for particular countries may end up good for the world.

Time Disconnect

The European Union has decreased its global influence to mitigate climate change because of its decreasing collaboration within international institutions and unsuccessful talks recently compared to the past. The Paris Agreement of 2015, which was the pinnacle of a worldwide campaign that was eventually successful, was the most visible and effective of these operations. Leaders in wealthier countries should intervene to coordinate aid for poorer countries (Machiavelli, 2014). For example, India communicated before the agreement was drawn up that it would not be part of it because being classified as a developing economy entitles them to special treatment. After several days of discussion, they settled on a plan to help developing countries attain their goal by providing them with access to resources and technology.

Despite the enormous achievement of recognition and the willingness of nearly two hundred countries to work together to avert major changes, significant social, economic, ethical, and political barriers have developed in the past year. The purpose of these barriers is to forestall major shifts. In The Oxford Handbook of Energy Politics, the political agenda, interests, plans, and ambitions have all been revised to account for the new leadership and the changing circumstances (Hancock & Allison, 2020). The Institute of International and European Affairs reported that this enemy’s actions work against the momentum that the Paris Agreement on climate change aimed to develop. Justifications for others’ withdrawal from the agreement were constructed after the initial decision to withdraw had been made (Falkner, 2019). Russia and Turkey have signed the agreement, but neither has approved it. Surprisingly, eco-leaders like Australia have consented to these measures, despite their argument that there is no longer a need to implement legislation that will affect Australia’s economy because the US has not committed to the Paris Agreement. Regarding protecting the planet, Australia is among the world’s top countries.

Significant climate policy and its influence on emissions must give real advantages to bridge this temporal gap. These advantages could include, for example, greater job possibilities or improved energy security. Put some money down now and the rest afterward. Both direct and indirect costs are associated with climate change (Falkner, 2016). The greatest expenditures will be made in anticipation of and response to climate-related natural disasters such as floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather occurrences. The rising price of fossil fuels is the second cost that would be borne directly due to implementing regulations limiting emissions. Even after the second expense has been covered, the first one will still be there for centuries, if not longer. Because of the temporal disjuncture mentioned previously, the amount of heat that has already been locked in has also locked in commensurate costs. These costs will not be limited to monetary losses but will also encompass damages to people’s health and natural ecosystems.

Modern Living

Many modern world leaders have chosen an antagonistic posture toward dealing with the climate crisis in any way, shape, or form. In international discussions, this widens the gap between industrialized and developing countries and hinders the need for cooperation between parties. Diplomats will need to put in a lot of time and effort to set up the framework that will eventually allow deeper agreements to be struck (Debroy & Books, 2005). For the reason that the agreement is the clearest and most concise legal document involved. There has to be a discussion about or a challenge to the morality of these choices. As has been pointed out, international institutions have also played a partial role in this debate by devoting more attention to some groups and individuals than others (Steffen et al., 2021). Many developing countries are already feeling the effects of Climate change and catastrophic weather changes, and it is expected that they will continue to bear the lion’s share of the burden in the future.

It is already challenging for many developing countries to adapt to and respond to climate change because of their high birth rates, widespread poverty, underdeveloped healthcare systems, and ineffective political institutions. Extreme air and water pollution is a daily reality for people in developing nations, increasing their vulnerability to insect-borne diseases and tainted food sources and the likelihood of climate-related migration, conflict, and displacement (Grotius, 2012). Because of this, they are even more defenseless against these dangers. The world’s nations should coordinate their efforts to lessen the danger that future generations in these countries will have to confront by developing measures to safeguard the most vulnerable states and fully funding those activities (Thucydides, 2016). Increasing the amount of money spent on R&D for new technologies, ensuring more people have access to clean water, helping more countries financially, and helping less developed countries strengthen their network infrastructure are all possibilities.

Conceptually, global governance and communication rely heavily on international institutions. Governments use them to learn about potential imbalances in multilateral partnerships and are relied on by states and international organizations to keep track of international accords. The lessons of history, however, show that, in reality, international institutions are more amenable to special-interest groups and are hence more likely to cave to protectionist demands (Hobbes, 2021). Though international organizations have a broad list of responsibilities to promote equality and give remedies to a wide variety of problems, state leaders and the educated public have become more critical of the policies and functioning of these organizations.

Climate Change Priorities in Developing Countries

The leaders of western nations are mostly responsible for the prevalence media about developing nations’ slow actions in combating climate change. Because of its Western orientation, international relations theory fails to explain important social processes adequately (Lawson, 2021). Perhaps a sizable chunk of this western bias can be explained by the west’s historical political and military superiority; this conclusion lends further credence to the adage that the winners write history, and political philosophy seems to be too. Identifying appropriate representatives within institutions and a more critical approach on the part of states should all be part of crafting policies that are more welcoming to people worldwide.

If the United States were to reduce its emissions, it would be counterproductive because China and India are not doing the same. Collective action paradox appears in this form, threatening to derail even modest efforts to address the issue (Tickner, 2013). Certain goals cannot be achieved without international cooperation, while other goals do not require nearly as much. The conclusion is that there can be no silos at the national level where climate change measures are taken. It will take decades, if not millennia, for the effects of policies imposed today to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to be felt in terms of Climate change. This holds even if strict measures are put in place immediately. This is because it is already certain that the temperature has greatly increased due to our historical emissions.

It is an aim embraced by the other Democratic presidential candidates and climate scientists everywhere. Climate change has cumulative consequences compared to other initiatives’ results (Allison, 1969). On the other hand, most other public policy matters would have almost instant and direct effects on millions of people if legislation were passed on them. Since these results will have an immediate impact on millions of people, this is the case (Bull, 1995). When a new healthcare law takes effect, people will probably feel the effects of that law. The general public has felt the immediate and widespread effects of President Trump’s immigration policies.

Conclusion

It is right to say that it has been difficult to achieve global cooperation to combat climate change because of global inaction, time disconnect, modern living, and climate change priorities in developing countries. Finding workable and palatable solutions to Climate change issues can be challenging. In The Oxford Handbook of Energy Politics, all of the environment’s pieces are linked together, and their interactions may occur at different times and places, adding another layer of complexity. According to The Oxford Handbook of Energy Politics, ever since humans emerged as a central part of their ecosystem, the sheer quantity of necessities and the social diversity of cultures and values that impede joint action has grown. Unfortunately, this makes situations much direr. Global climate change is brought on by the accumulative impacts of human economic activities on the environment. A nation’s progress can be measured by how quickly its consumption and emissions are rising. The top one percent of the world’s wealthiest emit around twice as much carbon dioxide as the bottom half of the population.

When it comes to political economics, the issue of combating climate change boils down to the priorities and aims of powerful economic actors, in this case, the fossil fuel sector. No other government has had to deal with a challenge on this scale. It will have far-reaching implications, though the exact nature of those ramifications and who will be responsible for them remain unknown. Nonetheless, international cooperation on this issue remains challenging even though no single government can undertake reforms big enough to halt climate change. It is much more difficult for governments to take a long-term perspective since the citizens of the future who will be obliged to pay the highest price for inactivity made now have not even been conceived yet. It is difficult to prevent climate change in the United States because most people are uninformed about the electrical grid system and the contributions the utility industry makes out of self-interest. Compared to gun control and abortion, the issue of climate change has created wider partisan divides in the United States. The implications of climate change are too great for individuals to make a difference. When combating climate change, fossil fuel companies routinely promote the idea that personal accountability and lifestyle choices are more important than reforms to the policies that govern the system. Nuclear power plants have the best safety record and cause the fewest deaths. There should be no taboo policy solutions to mitigating the effects of climate change.

References

Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689-718. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954423

Bull, H. (1995). Society and anarchy in international relations (1966). International Theory, 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23773-9_5

Debroy, B., & Books, P. (2005). The Bhagavad Gita. Penguin Books India.

Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708

Falkner, R. (2019). The unavoidability of justice – and order – in international climate politics: From Kyoto to Paris and beyond. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(2), 270-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118819069

Grotius, H. (2012). Hugo Grotius on the law of war and peace. Cambridge University Press.

Hancock, K. J., & Allison, J. E. (2020). The Oxford handbook of energy politics. Oxford University Press, USA.

Hobbes, T. (2021). Leviathan. Graphic Arts Books.

Lawson, S. (2021). Global politics.

Machiavelli, N. (2014). The prince.

Mencius. (2011). Mencius. Columbia University Press.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2021). The Anthropocene. Historiography: Critical Readings, 211-235. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350237124.0020

Stroebel, J., & Wurgler, J. (2021). What do you think about climate finance? https://doi.org/10.3386/w29136

Thucydides. (2016). History of the Peloponnesian War: Thucydides. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery, and (neo)imperialist international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323

Tzu, S. (2011). The art of war. Martino Fine Books.

Wapner, P. (2014). The changing nature of nature: Environmental politics in the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Politics, 14(4), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00256

Young, O. R. (2016). The shifting landscape of Arctic politics: Implications for international cooperation. The Polar Journal, 6(2), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2016.1253823

Zainieva, L., & Abdrasilova, K. (2018). On certain aspects of establishment of political science. Journal of Philosophy, Culture and Political Science, 3(65), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.26577/jpcp-2018-3-700